<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="sans-serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
About the MAG meeting on the 24th, I find two interesting elements to
report. <br>
<br>
The first is about the specific mandate given to the MAG by UN SG
earlier this year to </font>"make proposals with regard to its own
future, should the mandate be renewed". The meeting on the 24th was
supposed to have this as its main agenda apart from reviewing Vilnius
IGF. <br>
<br>
However, apart from discussing the way MAG members should be selected
(to which I will come in another email), the meeting unfortunately did
not really
get into looking into any substantive aspects in which it could change/
improve its working methods and outputs etc. The problem was that right
at the onset it was decided that the meeting will try to formulate a
possible terms of references for itself, which further largely turned
into an exercise for developing TOR or expectations for aspiring new
MAG members.<br>
<br>
The discussion therefore got a lot 'technicalised' towards discussing
details of what MAG members have been doing over the years, rather than
address the political question of how MAG can improve itself to still
better serve the IGF mandate and its impact, especially in the areas of
perceived lack. <br>
<br>
Obviously, if we just look at 'what did MAG members do' for the sake of
developing a list of expectations from new MAG members, the discussions
take quite a different direction from what can be expected to happen if
we specifically focus on possible improvements. I am quite sure that a
'what MAG members did' kind of documents could easily be developed by
the secretariat and possibly passed around for inputs if necessary.
There cannot be much debate over such directly observable facts. <br>
<br>
The real issue of possible improvements of the MAG got almost
completely ignored. I do not understand why developed country govs,
technical community, private sector and many in the CS do not
appreciate that most actors from developing countries - esp CS and govs
- really really want substantive improvements in the IGF for it to
begin to contributing to global Internet policy making, which is the
primary purpose for which it was set up. <br>
<br>
Interestingly, whenever, there is a move from within the UN to discuss
IGF improvements - whether in form of CSTD WG or UN Gen Assembly
discussions, there is a loud clamour from the groups that I mention
above
that IGF should self-evolve, and self-improve. Why then when the
primary driving body of the IGF - the MAG - is specifically asked to
suggest 'proposals regarding its own future' which in my view should
specifically contain proposals for improvements, it simply refuses to
even take up a
good discussion on the subject?<br>
<br>
Can any IGF self-improvement enthusiast explain this paradox to me?<br>
<br>
Contrary to what any outsider may expect from a meeting of a Body (
with a political role and mandate) called for the purpose of
considering its future form and activities, and giving specific
suggestions in this regard, there were almost no animated discussions.
The meeting
almost fizzled out post lunch when people seemed eager to just be done
with it and leave. Thats the MAG and the IGF for you. They dont want
any real outcomes, and they dont want others to tell them to change.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
open consultations <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>